Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 18-12-2018, 12:26 AM   #1
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Post Apollo Proof - explain this!

This thread is my presentation of small sections of evidence that routinely get ignored by the people who claim six missions were hoaxed. It appears no amount of conclusive evidence can break through an unreasonable person's fixed opinion. Nobody will be able to explain these videos properly, I doubt anyone will even try.

Number 1 shows an analysis of some soil being kicked by the flimsiest of boot movements. It goes a ridiculous height and distance, but perfect for the Moon. Adjusted for the Earth, it is ludicrous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs



Number 2, several objects flicked and tossed unfeasible distances. ALL perfect lunar motion. The piece of tarpaulin used to cover the science experiment, flicked with an aluminium rod a ludicrous height and distance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq6yYQYoX_A



Number 3 The Traverse of the Lunar Rover across the Moon's surface. I cannot fathom how anybody can view this and not seriously understand how it could not possibly be faked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc



Number 4 This one is an enormous nail in the hoax coffin. We have an astronaut digging a trench. All the while they both move about. ONLY when the footage is sped up to 245% does the soil rise and fall at Earth freefall speed. The astronauts look ridiculously fast!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7-7JgdgJls



Number 5 and 6 These next two parts both from a very long continuous EVA sequence. Part 1 shows a gravitational analysis. Part 2 shows soil hitting the ground at the same time....is the soil on wires? The analysis in video 1 shows that ONLY when the astronaut motion is 245% does he jump and land at Earth freefall speed. He looks absurd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuvW0FRd-U



Video 2, shows soil kicked up, hitting the ground in unison with the astronaut. This totally kicks the bullshit wires theory in the bollocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG5FuVxDcPU



Is there actually a single truth seeker around these parts who cares to acknowledge the evidence PROPERLY? To any logical, rational and honest truth seeking person, that proves they were taken on the Moon, especially the one with the Lunar Rover.

All posts that fail to address the posted evidence will be reported as off topic.
Likes: (2)
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 03:47 AM   #2
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,956 (2,160 Posts)
Default

One thing all those videos have in common is the picture quality is unbelievably bad , always best for fakery to hide things ... but wait NASA informs us they've now lost all the originals .... what a pity , the opportunity to analyse the pictures with advanced computer is now gone.

I did watch the man digging a trench , as I hadn't seen that before. The dirt is very dusty and extremely loose .... he has no problem going down about half a meter ....

What do you think would happen if that surface was blasted with a rocket engine from the lunar descent module ??



The craft would go down many meters would end up at the bottom of a deep crater .

But no ... the rocket with 10,000 lbs of thrust doesn't have the slightest effect on the powdery surface ...

oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 06:26 AM   #3
decim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,137
Likes: 2,985 (1,695 Posts)
Default

Dust. I'm convinced.




__________________
DISCLAIMER: Reader discretion advised. The above post is entirely fictional, for entertainment purposes only. Any similarities to real life events, animals, humans, persons, politicians, or any other form of organisation entity living, dead or in any other state of existence are coincidental. Any opinion, comment or statements related or attributed to this username are not necessarily nor implied to be those held by the ip/computer/username or other electronic media device or service owner/user.
Likes: (1)
decim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 09:44 AM   #4
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Surely the moon would have something other than earth's "soil" lying on the ground?
What IS doing the lying around here?

Last edited by grimstock; 18-12-2018 at 09:46 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 10:56 AM   #5
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by decim View Post
Dust. I'm convinced.




Why are you so afraid to answer the videos I posted?

Do you even think about what you post? The first video is a high performance vehicle spewing dust everywhere. Dust that SUSPENDS!

The LRV never suspends a single grain. You just proved it was on the moon. Clearly the performance car is spinning its wheels fast....yet it still doesn't do what the LRV does....nice clean parabolic waves.

The second video shows a bit of stuff being kicked a short distance and is fuck all to do with anything posted. In my video a casual flick sideways sends dust a ridiculous height and distance! Of course you can't explain that....explain why it doesn't at least make you question your fixed opinion?
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 11:20 AM   #6
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
One thing all those videos have in common is the picture quality is unbelievably bad , always best for fakery to hide things
Pathetic oz watches and avoids. You fail EVERY debate you enter on this subject, because you refuse to address the evidence. Shit quality because it was transmitted from the fucking moon!! It was also recorded on video.

Quote:
.. but wait NASA informs us they've now lost all the originals
Liar!! They have not lost any of the originals. Only the backup recordings for Apollo 11 were lost.

Quote:
.... what a pity , the opportunity to analyse the pictures with advanced computer is now gone.
Bullshit. The original recordings in best quality are available from Spacecraft Films. Nobody has found anything wrong with any of it. I don't count repeated debunked shite on that list.

Quote:
I did watch the man digging a trench , as I hadn't seen that before. The dirt is very dusty and extremely loose .... he has no problem going down about half a meter ....
Then why the fuck didn't you address the point it makes!!!! He has no problem on that area. Maybe you think the Moon is one gigantic plane of thick soil

OMFG he comes in here with THE most idiotic of all HB claims about a sodding blast crater and cowardly avoids all the video points in the OP.

What are you afraid of?

Read and then also answer(avoid) this...

They showed on the descent film, dust being blasted away the entire time at lower altitude to ground level.

Armstrong commented on the lack of a crater.

He and several others took dozens of under the LM images.

What idiot world does NASA....ALL SIX MISSIONS!! talk about it, photograph it but fail to actually make one if it was bloody needed. DUHH!

http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 11:28 AM   #7
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Hey truthers. Three responders. Not one of them has answered to the points in the OP.

No surprise at all. They never do and have been avoiding this the entire time I have been here. The bullshit hoax debunked to death, that avoids all evidence....none too impressive.
Likes: (2)
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 11:33 AM   #8
decim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,137
Likes: 2,985 (1,695 Posts)
Default

You tuber vids to try and prove apollo mooniness truegroup?
Has one become a hypocrite.
Show some concrete evidence not some nasa windowlicking fan made sperg fest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Your suspicion is misguided and I can only surmise that it has been made so by yoootub videos. It's a sad fact that people watch and swallow without looking for a debunk video.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: Reader discretion advised. The above post is entirely fictional, for entertainment purposes only. Any similarities to real life events, animals, humans, persons, politicians, or any other form of organisation entity living, dead or in any other state of existence are coincidental. Any opinion, comment or statements related or attributed to this username are not necessarily nor implied to be those held by the ip/computer/username or other electronic media device or service owner/user.

Last edited by screamingeagle; 18-12-2018 at 09:27 PM.
Likes: (1)
decim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 12:07 PM   #9
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by decim View Post
You tuber vids to try and prove apollo mooniness twoogwoop?
Try not to be an expletive. My name on this forum is Truegroup.

Quote:
Has one become a hypocrite.
Nope. Read the quote you picked up from another thread. Debunk videos on all of them....DEBUNKED TO DEATH!

Now, I provided videos - debunk them. Show me how they were done PROPERLY. And don't come out with some horse-arse explanation that is beyond ludicrous.

Quote:
Show some concrete evidence not some nasa windowlicking fan made sperg fest.
You lowlife using that terminology. Using your best evasion techniques, completely fail to explain why the videos do not SHOW concrete evidence.

Fail completely to provide examples of the type of concrete evidence you would find acceptable.

Last edited by truegroup; 18-12-2018 at 12:26 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 12:12 PM   #10
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Here is a list of geologists who have examined the lunar samples retrieved from the moon by the 6 Apollo missions. None of them doubt the authenticity. None of their findings point to anything other than that they came from off Earth, low gravity and not arrived as a meteor....

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publication...References.pdf

Page one of sixty-fucking-two....

Adams J. B. (1974) Visible and near-infrared diffuse
reflectance spectra of pyroxenes as applied to remote
sensing of solid objects in the solar system. J. Geophys.
Res., 79, 4829–4836.
Adams J. B. (1975) Interpretation of visible and near-infrared
diffuse reflectance spectra of pyroxenes and other rock
forming minerals. In Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy of
Lunar and Terrestrial Materials (C. Karr, ed.), pp. 91–116.
Academic, New York.
Adams J. B. and McCord T. B. (1973) Vitrification darkening
in the lunar highlands and identification of Descartes
material at the Apollo 16 site. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 4th,
pp. 163–177.
Adams J. B., Pieters C., and McCord T. B. (1974) Orange
glass: Evidence for regional deposits of pyroclastic origin
on the Moon. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 5th, pp. 171–186.
Adams J. B., Charette M. P., and Rhodes J. M. (1975)
Chemical fractionation of the lunar regolith by impact
melting. Science, 190, 380–381.
Adams J. B., Hörz F., and Gibbons R. V. (1979) Effects of
shock-loading on the reflectance spectra of plagioclase,
pyroxene and glass (abstract). In Lunar and Planetary
Science X, pp. 1–3. Lunar and Planetary Institute,
Houston.
Adams J. H. Jr. and Shapiro M. M. (1985) Irradiation of the
Moon by galactic cosmic rays and other particles. In Lunar
Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century (W. W.
Mendell, ed.), pp. 315–327. Lunar and Planetary Institute,
Houston.
Adler I. and Trombka J. I. (1977) Orbital chemistry–lunar
surface analysis from the X-ray and gamma-ray remote
sensing experiments. Phys. Chem. Earth, 10, 17–43.
Adler I., Trombka J., Gerard J., Schmadabeck R., Lowman P.,
Blodgett H., Yin L, Eller E., Lamoth R., Gorenstein P.,
Bjorkholm P., Harris B., and Gursky H. (1972) X-ray
fluorescence experiment. In Apollo 15 Preliminary Science
Report, pp. 17–1 to 17–17. NASA SP-289.
Adler I., Trombka J. I., Schmadebeck R., Lowman P., Blodget
H., Yin L., Eller E., Podwysocki M., Weidner J. R., Bickel
A. L., Lum R. K. L., Gerard J., Gorenstein P., Bjorkholm
P., and Harris B. (1973) Results of the Apollo 15 and 16 Xray
experiment. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 4th, pp. 2783–2791.
Aggarwal H. R. and Oberbeck V. R. (1979) Monte Carlo
simulation of lunar megaregolith and implications. Proc.
Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 10th, pp. 2689–2705.
Agosto W. N. (1985) Electrostatic concentration of lunar soil
minerals. In Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st
Century (W. W. Mendell, ed.), pp. 453–464. Lunar and
Planetary Institute, Houston.
Agrell S. O., Peckett A., Boyd F. R., Haggerty S. E., Bunch T.
E., Cameron E. N., Dence M. R., Douglas J. A. V., Plant A.
G., Traill R. J., James O. B., Keil K., and Prinz M. (1970a)
Titanian chromite, aluminum chromite, and chromian
ulvöspinel from Apollo 11 rocks. Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci.
Conf., pp. 81–86.
Agrell S. O., Scoon J. H., Muir I. D., Long J. V. P., McConnell
J. D. C., and Peckett A. (1970b) Observations on the
chemistry, mineralogy and petrology of some Apollo 11
lunar samples. Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf., pp. 93–128.
Ahrens T. J. and Cole D. M. (1974) Shock compression and
adiabatic release of lunar fines from Apollo 17. Proc. Lunar
Sci. Conf. 5th, pp. 2333–2345.
Ahrens T. J. and O’Keefe J. D. (1977) Equations of state and
impact-induced shock-wave interaction on the Moon. In
Impact and Explosion Cratering (D. J. Roddy, R. O. Pepin,
and R. B. Merrill, eds.), pp. 639–656. Pergamon, New York.
Albee A. L. and Chodos A. A. (1970) Microprobe investigations
on Apollo 11 samples. Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf., pp.
135–157.
Albee A. L., Chodos A. A., Gancarz A. J., Haines E. L.,
Papanastassiou D. A., Ray L., Tera F., Wasserburg G. J.,
and Wen T. (1972) Mineralogy, petrology, and chemistry of
a Luna 16 basaltic fragment, sample B-1. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett., 13, 353–367.
Aldrin E. E. Jr., Armstrong N. A., and Collins M. (1969) Crew
observations. In Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report, pp.
35–39. NASA SP-214.
Alexander E. C. Jr. and Kahl S. B. (1974) 40Ar-39Ar studies of
lunar breccias. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 5th, pp. 1353–1373.
Alexander E. C. Jr., Coscio M. R. Jr., Dragon J. C., and Saito
K. (1980) K/Ar dating of lunar soils IV: Orange glass from
74220 and agglutinates from 14259 and 14163. Proc. Lunar
Planet. Sci. Conf. 11th, pp. 1663–1677.
Alexandrov A. K., Borisov B. M., Garin I. S., Grafov V. I.,
Ivanov A. G., Kotlov Yu. P., Komarov V. I., Kuleshov A. F.,
Mishkin V. K., Nikolayev G. B., Polenov L. N., Semenov P.
S., and Yakovlev F. P. (1972) Investigations of mobility of
Lunokhod 1. In COSPAR Space Research XII, pp. 73–82.
Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
Ali M. Z. and Ehmann W. D. (1977) Chemical
characterization of lunar core 60010. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf.
8th, pp. 2967–2981.
Allen C. C. (1975) Central peaks in lunar craters. The Moon,
12, 463–474.
Allen R. O. Jr., Jovanovic S., and Reed G. W. Jr. (1974) A
study of 204Pb partition in lunar samples using terrestrial
and meteoritic analogues. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 5th, pp.
1617–1623.
Allen R. O., Jovanovic S., and Reed G. W. Jr. (1975)
Agglutinates: Role in element and isotope chemistry and
inferences regarding volatile-rich rock 66095 and glass
74220. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 6th, pp. 2271–2279.
Allton J. H. (1989) Catalog of Apollo Lunar Surface Geological
Sampling Tools and Containers. NASA JSC Publ. No. 23454.
92 pp.
Allton J. H. and Waltz S. R. (1980) Depth scales for Apollo 15,
16, and 17 drill cores. Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 11th,
pp. 1463–1477.
Alvarez L. W., Alvarez W., Asaro F., and Michel H. V. (1980)
Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass
extinction. Science, 208, 1095–1108.



Last edited by truegroup; 18-12-2018 at 02:00 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 04:38 PM   #11
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

The truth is never wrong
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 04:58 PM   #12
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
Surely the moon would have something other than earth's "soil" lying on the ground?
Yes you are astonishingly observant. Clearly all that grey regolith is not what you'd find on the Moon

Quote:
What IS doing the lying around here?
You are.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 05:08 PM   #13
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
The truth is never wrong
Two posts on this thread ..both off topic and nowhere near addressing the OP.

The truth is we went to the Moon manned 9 times. Six times we landed. We left science experiments there that transmitted data back for a considerable time. We left laser reflectors there in 3 places. We brought back 842lbs of verified lunar samples including 3m core tubes. These have been verified by thousands of geologists around the world. We have 50 hours of surface video that shows unfakeable lunar gravitational motion. We have thousands of images that match surface topography exactly. We have untold pictures from LROC showing the landing sites.

The truth continues.....nothing presented as hoax material stands up to scrutiny from anyone who has even scant intelligence.

The truth is....you know nothing whatsoever about the complexity of the missions and the verifiability You know nothing about any of the relevant sciences. You fail to respond to any of the evidence. You rely on debunked shite and lack the skill set to understand.

That was the truth and it wasn't wrong
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 05:35 PM   #14
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Moving on from all the background noise!

Number 7 and 8 This is an absolute gem. From the moment the Apollo 17 LRV is parked until well after the LM has taken off, including launch footage.....the camera transmits in one continuous piece of footage!!

Here we see Harrison Schmitt messing around outside the LM from distance, tossing a geology hammer. You can even see it glint as it flies across the Moon's surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdbNulVSpeU



Then shortly afterwards, continuous, we see the bloody LM launch!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr98RgNjAgg



That one is aligned with the onboard camera, shows tiny craters at ground level and craters the same screen width at thousands of feet altitude. We see bits of Kapton foil flying across the surface. Still waiting for St Jimmy to explain how big the magic simulator was. Any chance of anyone explaining in a million years how they overlaid the astronauts onto the magic 1972 launch footage?

The truth is never wrong. HBs however, never right

Last edited by truegroup; 18-12-2018 at 05:47 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 07:00 PM   #15
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

I've come to the conclusion there's little point engaging with Apollo deniers, Truthers, Flat Earthers, etc. because they have part of their brain missing. They are simply unable to assess facts and evidence which goes against their belief.

There have been plenty of academic studies of this cult-like behaviour and how it can be manipulated to treacherous ends, of which the hapless victims are unaware - until it's too late. (Just look up how this mind set is or was exploited by the likes of Le Pen, Erdogan, Mussolini, Stalin, etc.)

When people with strongly held beliefs are presented with contrary evidence, rather than change their minds they turn to cognitive consonance (the opposite of cognitive dissonance) by convincing others to support their erroneous views.

Of course there are also the trolls who don't believe a word of their BS, but like to chuckle at the hard of thinking who are so poorly educated that they lap all this garbage up and get on board...

thermion
Likes: (2)
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2018, 11:43 PM   #16
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Ok, so more for the pathetic hoax claimers to ignore!

http://www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD.html

Some truly epic analysis, PROVING from 2 pictures that the Apollo mission was exactly where they said. On the Moon at the right latitude and longitude facing the directions claimed with the Earth exactly positioned correctly as viewed from where the pictures were taken!!

Firstly Photo 1 -


"Earth in photo 5924 — This is the exact brightness and color of the Earth, as recorded in the above photo, after only color correction was applied to the original film slide. Note that you are seeing the Pacific Ocean and the continent of Australia at the 10 o'clock position. Japan is at the 1 o'clock position at the upper right, but it appears that Japan was covered by clouds. Note that I increased the sharpness and boosted the contrast in the larger linked image in order to make both the cloud patterns and land masses more apparent."


"Celestia's representation of the Earth from the Apollo 11 landing site on July 21, 1969 at 04:14UT — Pretty much an exact match, isn't it? Well, except for Celestia's simulated cloud cover. This Celestia image of the Earth is on the Earth's bearing relative to the Apollo 11 landing site, and of course looking up at the Earth and greatly zoomed in. Using the Celestia image and the above close-up view of the Earth taken from photo 5924, one can calculate exactly how much the camera was tilted relative to horizontal when photo 5924 was taken."


Last edited by truegroup; 18-12-2018 at 11:53 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2018, 12:11 AM   #17
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Photo 2 - the most famous one of all.



"How high was the sun above the horizon when photo 5903 was taken? — At the Apollo 11 landing site
on July 21, 1969 at 04:14UT when this photo was taken, the sun was at an altitude of approximately 14.75
degrees above the horizon. The screen shot at left is from a program called Celestia. It is a view from the
Apollo 11 landing site on the lunar surface on July 21, 1969 at 04:14UT."



"Visor close-up from photo5903 — Here I have removed the visor's gold tint and rotated the view to make
the horizon horizontal. Note that the apparent visible phase of the Earth is misleading since the Earth's reflection
from near the edge of the visor is greatly distorted by the spherically shaped visor. If you look closely at the image
, it appears that the Biogon lens has some slight inherent on-axis astigmatism. This instead may have been caused
by Armstrong not holding the camera quite steady enough for the given the exposure time, or by Aldrin slightly
moving during the exposure."



"Photo5903 (Aldrin's Visor View, distortion corrected) — My processed and distortion corrected view of the
reflection in Aldrin's visor in the above 5903photo. I have mirrored this image left-to-right in order to show what
Aldrin saw from inside his visor when Armstrong shot the famous 5903 "Man On The Moon" photo. Yes, that is
indeed the Earth above and somewhat to the right of Armstrong. You can also see that Armstrong had his gold
colored visor pulled down when he shot the famous 5903 photo of Aldrin."



"So, just where was the Earth in the moon's sky above Aldrin's head? — Celestia gives us this answer.
The Earth was at an altitude of almost exactly 59 degrees above the western lunar horizon on a bearing of 273
degrees along the western lunar horizon. The real kicker is when you compare a close-up of Celestia's
representation of the Earth and its phase to the close-up of the Earth in photo 5924 POST ABOVE!!."



"Armstrong-Aldrin position angle(bearing) at which 5903 was taken — This is only a preliminary result
which assumes that the west lunar horizon, although elevated, is level. It probably was not. In order to figure
out the bearing, you have to mentally draw a line from the camera on Armstrong's chest to its reflection off of
Aldrin's spherically shaped visor. You also have to realize that the exact point on the surface of Aldrin's visor is
the point on the visor which is closest to the camera. Eventually I will create a CAD model to visually show this concept.

In any event, assuming that the west horizon was level and based on the above measured position angle of the
Earth in the visor sky (an angle of 13.9 degrees), I zoomed out as far as I could in Celestia and through several
iterations of tweaking the direction along the horizon at which I was looking, I found that a bearing of 248
degrees produces the correct 13.9 degree offset for the Earth relative to the zenith. Thus Aldrin was standing on
a bearing, relative to Armstrong's position, of 68degrees east relative to lunar north, and of course Armstrong was
standing on a bearing of 248 degrees relative to Aldrin.
"




That little picture has the Earth in the EXACT position and relative to the Sun, they are also exactly positioned. Magic NASA?

Nope, on the Moon just like they said. See the link in my sig? Fence sitters should go explore it.

Last edited by truegroup; 19-12-2018 at 12:14 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2018, 03:44 PM   #18
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truegroup
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666
One thing all those videos have in common is the picture quality is unbelievably bad , always best for fakery to hide things
Pathetic oz watches and avoids. You fail EVERY debate you enter on this subject, because you refuse to address the evidence. Shit quality because it was transmitted from the fucking moon!! It was also recorded on video.
Another problem for these NASA-supporters, is that the transmission argument is completely ridiculous.
As the videos are arguably the most important “evidence”, NASA would have recorded the video on tape on the moon and brought the tapes back to earth!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Truegroup
Quote:
.. but wait NASA informs us they've now lost all the originals
Liar!! They have not lost any of the originals. Only the backup recordings for Apollo 11 were lost.
You shameless liar.
The tapes that were reportedly destroyed by NASA were in the "slow scan" format (that was the format reportedly received directly from the mooon) of a much “better” quality than the fuzzy footage where we could see through the astronauts.

So you're saying that NASA doesn’t Never give A Straight Answer, but the mainstream Telegraph (almost as “independent”) is wrong?
The tapes that were preserved by NASA, are of the Apollo 11 footage after “conversion” (that was broadcast around the world).
The tapes that were reportedly destroyed by NASA were in the "slow scan" format. These were reportedly of a much “better” quality than the fuzzy footage where we could actually see through the astronauts.
Quote:
The specially designed lunar camera strapped to the side of the landing craft recorded in an unusual, "slow scan" format that needed to be converted for broadcast television back on Earth, causing the images to be substantially degraded.
But the quality of the slow scan images on magnetic tapes was near perfect, according to Stan Lebar, who designed the camera. "It was better. We knew it was better," he said.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ood-style.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/FEA3o)
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 19-12-2018 at 03:49 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2018, 05:07 PM   #19
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default Puck puck puckaaaaargh - more off topic shit

UNBELIEVABLE!! Yet another of the usual suspect HBs who post and fail to address any of the presented evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Another problem for these NASA-supporters, is that the transmission argument is completely ridiculous.
No, you are utterly clueless. These transmissions appeared on live TV and recorded on Earth in real time on video tapes and magnetic computer reels.

FFS, you even quote the ground station tapes tale below for Apollo 11.....duhhhh!!!


Quote:
As the videos are arguably the most important “evidence”, NASA would have recorded the video on tape on the moon and brought the tapes back to earth!
You really have no idea whatsoever do you. EVERY single one of the recordings available then and now were transmitted from the Moon and recorded on Earth There is no reliance on any recorded medium from the Moon.

Quote:
You shameless liar.
Clueless. You know nothing about anything on this subject. You fumble around google like a blind man and blurt out shite you don't understand

Quote:
The tapes that were reportedly destroyed by NASA
Nope. NASA kept backup copies of all the telemetry and SSTV - THESE were all overwritten as they were all received and recorded on other formats to the reel to reel tapes they were copied to.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...56F5MK20090716

Erased and reused.

The ones YOU refer to were the tapes received in Australia from the data transmissions from the FUCKING MOON of the FIRST landing ONLY. These were only looked for decades later, after somebody noticed that the better quality stills existed compared to the converted footage.

Since this, the original footage has been digitally restored and is very close to how the original SSTV would have appeared.

Quote:
were in the "slow scan" format (that was the format reportedly received directly from the mooon) of a much “better” quality than the fuzzy footage where we could see through the astronauts.
The major difference is that the SSTV TRANSMISSIONS FROM THE FUCKING MOON, could not be directly played. They had to be converted first. This resulted in the degradation. As noted and already reported, the digitally restored ones are every bit as good as the overwritten SSTV.

Quote:
So you're saying that NASA doesn’t Never give A Straight Answer, but the mainstream Telegraph (almost as “independent”) is wrong?
NASA always gives a straight answer and no, you are getting confused because you read but don't understand what you are reading.

Quote:
The tapes that were preserved by NASA, are of the Apollo 11 footage after “conversion” (that was broadcast around the world).
Never denied.

Quote:
The tapes that were reportedly destroyed by NASA were in the "slow scan" format. These were reportedly of a much “better” quality than the fuzzy footage where we could actually see through the astronauts.
NASA overwrote its copies of the original SSTV/Telemetry/Biomedical tapes. It already had the data in other formats.

Hindsight being the domain of the clueless HB, years later it became apparent that a better quality version could be obtained from the Raw signals.

Once again for the very hard of understanding....the digitally remastered versions are every bit as good quality.

Now you've said this identical shite about 3 times already, how about you address the fucking evidence instead of running away???

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz19666
but wait NASA informs us they've now lost all the originals
Hey Jimmy, oz said ALL the originals are lost. Is he lying?

Another one to avoid: Why the fuck didn't NASA a) keep quiet about this? b) If it faked so many missions invisibly, why the fuck didn't they just release the original version they faaaaked?

Last edited by truegroup; 19-12-2018 at 05:10 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2018, 05:11 PM   #20
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
No, you are utterly clueless. These transmissions appeared on live TV and recorded on Earth in real time on video tapes and magnetic computer reels.

FFS, you even quote the ground station tapes tale below for Apollo 11.....duhhhh!!!
There you go again!!!
Not understanding what I wrote...

If these videos were so damn important, they would have saved the lot on the moon and took the tapes back to earth!

Of course it's much easier to do special effects when the visual quality is much lower.
But the transmission argument is just as ridiculous as just about all the gibberish you post...
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.